Recently came across a mineral lease executed by husband and wife as lessor. Husband then sold the royalty without any acknowledgement or consent by wife. The minerals were acquired after marriage.
Due to the lease being in the name of both husband and wife and due to the transfer only being executed by husband (for benefit of people other than wife) without any known acknowledgement of wife, is this conveyance void, voidable, applicable only to 50% of the communal estate or something else?
The lease was with husband {name} and wife {name} as Lessor. The royalty transfer was only made by husband to a trust benefiting his secretary. The Ratification of Oil and Gas Lease was executed by the Trustee of the trust making reference to the lease where it said husband {name} et ux wife {name}. Both husband and wife are deceased but wife did not approve of husbands relationship with beneficiaries of the trust and it is unfathomable that she would have consented to a transfer of assets belonging/owned by her to her husbands secretary
Mr Archer, To be safe oil companies often ask both spouses to sign a lease even though only one of them actually owns the minerals. So the presence of both names on a lease doesn't prove ownership. You need additional information to determine your answer.
This is only an opinion. You really need to consult an attorney. IF the husband owned any of those minerals, he conveyed his interest (whatever that amounts to) into the Trust. The absence of the wife's signature wouldn't void his action but it would preserve her interest (whatever that amounts to) outside of the Trust. First you'd need to seek the deed where the interests were acquired (was only one the Grantee, or were both?). Second, even if only one Grantee was shown, you'd need to consider the laws of the state they resided in to determine if there is any potential implications of community property. Again yours is a legal question which requires competent counsel who has all the pertinent documents and facts in hand.
Dear MT,
Unless the transfer was part of the homestead. Then it would be voidable. (These are Texas Lands)
Although there is a presumption of community in Texas, with the facts given, it could well be separate.
Mr. Cotton thanks for correcting me. State laws vary widely. Here in Montana I don't believe it would be the same as what you outline for Texas.
Quote from OP: "The minerals were acquired after marriage."
Is there any way these could have been ~ inherited ~ by the husband from one of his relatives? His wife would then have no claim to them here in Texas. That has always been my understanding.
The minerals were acquired by mineral deed dated several years after the marriage. They were not inherited but rather purchased from a resident of Midland while the purchaser lived hundreds of miles away. So unless the cash used for the purchase was from separate property, which seems like a stretch, I am having a tough time seeing how this could be separate property.
What year did the husband sell the royalty?
Minerals were acquired (1951) and royalty was conveyed in 1975. Minerals themselves remained in estate either in their entirety or 1/2 with husband and 1/2 with wife depending on whether it is community property or not.
The husband died first and left 100% of the residue of his estate to his wife so she ultimately owned 100% of the minerals either way but never received any royalty due to the conveyance to the trust and the decision by the oil company to leave production in suspense since they took over operation of the well (late 2001). I have not yet determined where the proceeds are as it relates to the period prior to 2001.
In 1975 laws authorizing a husband to sell community property without his spouse's consent were still valid. I have no idea if any such law in Texas existed at the time, but it's possible. Perhaps someone with more TX experience would know...
OR unless the Mineral Deed conveyed to the husband only and stated that the conveyance was to be part of the husband's separate property....
William Douglas Archer said:
The minerals were acquired by mineral deed dated several years after the marriage. They were not inherited but rather purchased from a resident of Midland while the purchaser lived hundreds of miles away.